Archaeological theory and method have recently become the subject of vigorous debate centred on the growing realization that archaeological theory is social theory and as such can be looked at by means of a wide variety of sociological frameworks, such as structuralism and post-structuralism, Marxism and critical theory. In this analysis, Shanks and Tilley argue against the functionalism and positivism which result from an inadequate assimilation of social theory into the day-to-day practice of archaeology. Aimed at an advanced undergraduate audience, the book presents a challenge to the traditional idea of the archaeologist as explorer or discoverer and the more recent emphasis on archaeology as behavioural science. The authors examine and evaluate the new possibilities for a self-reflexive, critical and political practice of archaeology, productively linking the past to the present.

Social Theory and Archaeology.

Aspects of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are discussed and criticized. Problems are pointed out in three general areas: the latitude Kuhn allows in the concept paradigm, his views on the nature of scientific change, and his notion of incommensurability and the accompanying problems of relativism. The utilization of Kuhn's model by archaeologists is then critiqued, with a focus on the varying interpretations of the paradigmatic state of the discipline. Finally, consideration is given to the recent changes in archaeology that have led to the claim that there has been a scientific revolution in the field. It is argued that those ostensibly fundamental changes are neither revolutionary nor particulary beneficial to a scientific archaeology.

Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American Archaeology

Differential adaptation of initial proto-Polynesian culture into a range of cultural variants has long been a topic of anthropological investigation. Burrows'11} classic study of Western Polynesia is perhaps the best example of the comparative ethnographic approach. In the late 1950s, stratigraphie archaeology in Samoa and Tonga established a time depth for cultural adaptation and change in Western Polynesia of two or more millennia; recent linguistic studies have elaborated this archaeological picture. More than a decade of archaeological research in Samoa and Tonga has taken us some way towards an understanding of the processes of development and elaboration of Western Polynesian cultures, particularly with regard to patterns of settlement, exploitation, and modification of the environ ment. It was with the aim of expanding such research that a programme of combined ethnographic and archaeological investigation of indigenous settlement patterns and agricultural systems was undertaken by the author in the geographically, ecologically, and culturally important Home and Wallis Islands (Futuna, Alofi, and Uvea).(2) Geographically, the islands lie between Samoa to the east and Fiji to the south-west, a key position as regards the movements of populations into and out of Western Polynesia. Ecologically, Futuna, Alofi, and Uvea offer an environmental spectrum

Ethno-Archaeological Investigations in Futuna and Uvea (Western Polynesia): a Preliminary Report

Publisher Summary
This chapter focuses on the quantification in archaeological research. It outlines and discusses historical antecedents to quantified approaches in both anthropology and archaeology, and attempts to characterize the present status of quantification in archaeology. Statistical concepts and procedures have been discussed (a) from a historical perspective, in terms of the incidence of archaeological usage over the past 45 years; (b) in the narrower context of the role of inferential statistics in the formulation and testing of hypotheses (CDA); and (c) from the “display and pattern-search” point of view of exploratory data analysis. Preliminary results from a recent survey of current thinking in archaeological method and theory serve to underscore the widespread concern with quantification in general and with the adoption of statistical modes of analysis. Concerns with a lack of theoretical development within the discipline, and with the need to develop methods for obtaining a closer fit between models and data were also expressed in the context of a bewildering diversity of methodological and theoretical interests. It is suggested that an exposure to basic quantification, descriptive and inferential techniques would not be inappropriate by the end of the sophomore year and could be accommodated by the inclusion of a single introductory course in the undergraduate curriculum.

6 – Quantifying Archaeological Research

Citations analysis, which has become a standard research tool in a growing number of scientific fields, provides the basis for a study of changes in research orientations in Americanist archaeology. In a preliminary report, several trends recognizable in citations from American Antiquity are indicated. Especially apparent are those studies that deal with processual issues.

Changing Aims of Americanist Archaeology: A Citations Analysis of American Antiquity. 1946-1975

It is a cliche to begin a review article by acknowledging that the subject is too large to be examined in any comprehensive manner. Environment, subsistence, and society are each the domain of at least one discipline. Environment is considered to be the proper subject for ecologists, biologists, geologists, and geographers; subsistence is the domain of economists, nutritionists, and various agricultural specialists; society is studied by anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, to name only a few. Yet some men have attempted to relate the three subjects into an analytical framework. Few men have been as concise and yet been able to maintain as consistent a world view on this subject as John Aubrey (1626-97), the first person to consider Stonehenge and Avebury in archaeological perspective. He stated:

Ezra B. W. Zubrow

Papers

Environment, Subsistence, and Society: The Changing Archaeological Perspective